houseoftolstoy @[email protected]

https://archive.is/0iDEC

>Democrats need to win them with respect – but to do that, they need to actually respect them.

Kind of hard to do that when so many on the left have open contempt for the people on the right and consider them evil for having a different political outlook than themselves.

@sardonicsmile Is this one of the guys who had to pay child support in spite of the fact that he was a victim of statutory rape? Even factoring that out, this is absolute enraging. Trying to shift the blame on a teenager when she was the adult.

This only makes a stronger case for TWRA.

There is a reason why men value virginity in a woman. It is because you are being picked first if she actually had restraint from sex before you.

But now very few men who want marriage can find a woman who fit this criteria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlWG-mWoFBk

@Furgar >movie/show series has mostly male actors and mostly male audience
>is commerically successful
>"I know, let's make a female version of this, because we have no idea how to appeal to anyone at all!"

I have previously been critical of Twilight, but I cannot say that it was not successful at catering to the target audience. It seems some people would rather push an agenda rather than make money.

@VeganMGTOW I was looking for a different one, but this one will suffice.

@pepsi_man @Bad_Banner @Wormwood The 10% thing can be found here (Genesis 28:20-22):

Then Jacob made a vow, saying, “If God will be with me and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat and clothing to wear, 21 so that I come again to my father's house in peace, then the Lord shall be my God, 22 and this stone, which I have set up for a pillar, shall be God's house. And of all that you give me I will give a full tenth to you.”

@Zeb Yes, voting is not going to solve things. But in what I am stating, how you vote usually reflects how you want things to be done politically. And when someone says you are voting against your interests, they are stating that you really want things done their way instead of your way, and they are accusing you of being too stupid to realize what you want.

I am against the condescending attitude behind the statement. No one should see voting as the means to save themselves.

And this does not even get to the topic of what works and what doesn't. That is often where the debate truly lies, because we still have this debate when everyone is not on the same page about what works and what does not work.

You cannot get the people who want government to do more to have an agreeable solution with those who want the government to do less. The same goes for you cannot get agreement when two or more factions want the government to act but in divergent ways.

Another point to debate is how different approaches to solving a problem cannot be rectified just because "we want the same things."

Let us say that everyone can agree that poverty is bad and we want less of it. How do we end it? The left may advocate for wealth redistribution in many forms, while the right may advocate for less government intervention. It should be clear that these two solutions cannot work together, since wealth redistribution is the government intervention the right opposes.

The pro-stability rightwing individual would want to see people fall in line with the rule of law. They may not like income inequality or poverty, but those concerns are lesser priorities to them.

While I may have oversimplified the outlooks for brevities sake, the point is that unity is not found in "wanting the same things" if you have not clearly defined what that even means.

One example of "wanting the same things" not working out is due to the definition of "the same things" being too vague.

"We want everyone to have a better life."

What does that mean? The answer depends on the ideology of who you ask. The more socialist/progressive minded individual may want incomes/wealth to be evenly distributed, while the more libertarian/free market individual may want everyone to just not have poverty without a care for equity.

I have stated before that "we want the same things" is not often true when it comes to politics. I will state another thing: even if two or more groups with different political idealogies want to achieve the same outcome, vague or specific, this cannot be a source of unity because of the different means that each group will want to use. The real dividing factor here would be implementation of the goals, and you cannot unify on implementation when your plans work against each other.

If I ever see or hear the words "you are voting against your interests", my response is this:

So tell me what my interests are.

The person making the initial assertion will either need to know me very well to accurately assess how I should change my voting patterns to align with my interests or they should admit that they do not actually know my interests.

And if they admit this, then how can they state that I am voting against my interests when they do not have knowledge of them?

@memes I am no fan of emojis, but I am no fan of the faggotry of this anti-emoji redditor's comment.

"I'll be forced to issue a downvote to your comment. Why should you care, you may ask? Well to begin, you will lose karma on your account, which is a useful social status tool and also a way to show others you know your way around Reddit."

When you comment on the reason why you downvote someone, you are the reason people (correctly) think Reddit sucks so much.

Apparently betting markets think Trump is going to win. No polls or odds are going to mean anything if those pulling the strings want to get the "correct" result.

They will just make up whatever lies they need to in order to provide enough of a smokescreen to keep the normies from suspecting anything. But who knows? Maybe they want war with Iran or they know that the system is held together by duct tape and see this as the perfect opportunity to let things fall apart.

We will see soon.